Wo de zhong wen bu hao.paladin2019 wrote:What, you plan on offing yourself to avoid it?
700 billion dollars bailout
I would recommend you re-read the second quote you provided from the report, and make an objective assessment as to whether or not it supports the paragraph of yours I've quoted here. I believe it does not; in fact, I believe much of it contradicts your statement here, but only self-assessment is likely to influence you in this case.Cain wrote:So, we don't see that "letting it happen" will help the economy. In fact, waiting too long can make the situation worse. We can't just sit around and wait for the markets to recover on their own. Intervention is required.
I would recommend you read the whole paragraph, instead of one sentence that is basically a "safety clause", allowing for the unknown. Using objective assessment, and the basic rules of scholarly writing, it should be known that the last sentence is usually the closing of the paragraph, and has the most emphasis.
But, if you prefer:
But, if you prefer:
I'm not going to edit this paragraph, so I can't be accused of selective quoting. This is near the end of the text portion, and seems to go over what makes an economic intervention successful. Past one or two "weasel" sentences spread out through the whole paper, I do not see anything suggesting what you've indicated: that it is best to "tough out" recessions, instead of applying one of several proven-effective tactics for preventing both long and short-term damage.Our preliminary analysis based on partial correlations indicates that some resolution
measures are more effective than others in restoring the banking system to health and
containing the fallout on the real economy. Above all, speed appears of the essence. As soon
as a large part of the financial system is deemed insolvent and has reached systemic crisis
proportions, bank losses should be recognized, the scale of the problem should be
established, and steps should be taken to ensure that financial institutions are adequately
capitalized. A successful bank recapitalization program tends to be selective in its financial
assistance to banks, specifies clear quantifiable rules that limit access to preferred stock
assistance, and enacts capital regulation that establishes meaningful standards for risk-based
capital. Government-owned asset management companies appear largely ineffective in
resolving distressed assets, largely due to political and legal constraints. Next, the adverse
impact of the stress on the real economy need to be contained. To relief indebted corporates
and households from financial stress and restore their balance sheets to health, intervention in
the form of targeted debt relief programs to distressed borrowers and corporate restructuring
programs appear most successful. Such programs will typically require public funds, and
tend to be most successful when they are well-targeted with adequate safeguards attached.
Wait a sec. The source you cite for your own statements doesn't support what you claim, and it "doesn't bother you"? Where are you drawing support for your opinions from, then?3278 wrote:Yes, I've noticed that, but it doesn't bother me very much. I simply encourage others to read the report, and draw their own conclusions.Cain wrote:I do not see anything suggesting what you've indicated...
-
paladin2019
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:24 am
- Location: Undisclosed locations in Southwest Asia
I'd be surprised if it did. But he cited it as support for his views. Namely, that it'd be better to suffer through this major recession than to take one of many steps to prevent too much damage from being done. The sections I've quoted seem to say the exact opposite.paladin2019 wrote:Cain, the fact you don't read the report the same as 32 is what doesn't bother him.
They seem that way to you, but I believe you are incorrect. I don't know how you're getting what you're getting out of it, but I've learned that most people will simply turn any evidence into support of whatever preconceived idea they possess, rationalizing any differences. I could certainly spend the next several weeks going back and forth with you, quoting specific passages and linking to other overviews, but previous experience with you and with others has taught me that won't be particularly productive. You've decided what you believe, and a signed note from God won't change your mind. But that doesn't bother me very much. As I say, anyone else who is curious about the contents of the report and what it says or does not say can read it and draw their own conclusions.
-
Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
I could say the same about you, but that wouldn't be productive now, would it? Our precious internet time is being wasted, and instead of discussing how to better our world, we should indeed be focused on something more productive. Like looking at pr0n.3278 wrote:They seem that way to you, but I believe you are incorrect. I don't know how you're getting what you're getting out of it, but I've learned that most people will simply turn any evidence into support of whatever preconceived idea they possess, rationalizing any differences. I could certainly spend the next several weeks going back and forth with you, quoting specific passages and linking to other overviews, but previous experience with you and with others has taught me that won't be particularly productive. You've decided what you believe, and a signed note from God won't change your mind. But that doesn't bother me very much. As I say, anyone else who is curious about the contents of the report and what it says or does not say can read it and draw their own conclusions.
You can, of course, decline to participate in intellectual debate. That's your right. But don't think you can throw out an unsupported statement in one and expect to get away with it.
-
WillyGilligan
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:33 pm
- Location: Hawai'i
- Contact:
-
Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
Oh, Cain, I would never decline to participate in intellectual debate. It's just that previous experience tells me that's not really what I'd be getting from you. But please, feel free to keep trying to bait me into one.Cain wrote:You can, of course, decline to participate in intellectual debate.
Oh, that's nice: the fishing metaphor. What's it called, when you string out some bait and drive through a school of fish? I'm so forgetful, these days.
-
Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
You're right, you'd need a track record of participating in them in the first place.3278 wrote:Oh, Cain, I would never decline to participate in intellectual debate.Cain wrote:You can, of course, decline to participate in intellectual debate.
Look in the mirror, and think real hard.... I'm sure it'll all come back to you.Oh, that's nice: the fishing metaphor. What's it called, when you string out some bait and drive through a school of fish? I'm so forgetful, these days.
Anyway, since it's established that the IMF report basically discusses Keynesian means of shoring up an economy in a recession, what do you all think about this plan to take over the banks? I'm exaggerating somewhat, but that's what buying up shares in the banks amounts to-- buying ownership in the faltering banks.
I'm not out to change your perspective. If anything, I know my presence will only harden it.3278 wrote:Cain, I'm sorry, but I'm really not interesting in talking with you, in case I haven't made that clear. Your continuing posting certainly isn't changing my perspective on the sort of discussion that would result.