Bar Stool Philosophy: How We ‘could’ Have Fixed the Housing Market Crash
Browse articles:
Auto Beauty Business Culture Dieting DIY Events Fashion Finance Food Freelancing Gardening Health Hobbies Home Internet Jobs Law Local Media Men's Health Mobile Nutrition Parenting Pets Pregnancy Products Psychology Real Estate Relationships Science Seniors Sports Technology Travel Wellness Women's Health
Browse companies:
Automotive Crafts & Gifts Department Stores Electronics Fashion Food & Drink Health & Beauty Home & Garden Online Services Sports & Outdoors Subscription Boxes Toys, Kids & Baby Travel & Events

Bar Stool Philosophy: How We ‘could’ Have Fixed the Housing Market Crash

I’m a communist, forgive me for not having the best outlook toward capitalist…  Note that when I say capitalists I’m speaking about the 1% of the world’s population that is in possession of over 99% of the world’s wealth or capital.  I am talking about those people who can loose their primary source of income, and not change the style and way in which they live.

That said, I was once relaxing, drinking, smoking with a friend when this solution was proposed to me.

The discussion was pre election, right around the bank bail out. My friend Adam Smith was discussing how simple it would be to solve at least improve the entire countries economic problem.  I was willing to bite and got a good bit of information out of him.

Smith noted that the spent more on the bail out than the debt in which the house owners  had incurred.  This did not surprise me, so I never looked into it… I doubt it changes the validity of the eventual improvement.  So Smith than brings up the revolutionary idea that the government should have bailed out the housing owners.  The very owners who owed the money in the first place.  These people who are the back bone of our economy would then be able to pay those debts.

We now have the populace and the banks paid.  The people are no longer in financial crisis and free to spend and invest in the economy.  The banks are no longer in financial crisis and free to invest in our economy.

It was at this point that my other friend Karl Marx noted that the people who were in debt in the first place had already failed their obligation and did not deserve to be bailed out.  What did not connect in Marx’s mind must have been the simple fact that neither did the banks.

It was not the people who offered mortgages that ballooned in such a way as to create such massive foreclosures.  It was banks taking a risk, a risk that offered a lot of money to be made.  The gamble of course did not result in the cake and it’s eating.  It was of course a calculated choice and a choice that capitalism dictates is choice that sets those destined to succeed from those destined to fail.

Smith made his point with most those there.  The banks took a risk and failed.  Simple as that any other business would have been smothered and die peacefully.  Nothing necessarily warranted the bank bail out.  If action was necessary the action should have been taken toward those who were hoodwinked into and suffered most from such poor business decisions.

Need an answer?
Get insightful answers from community-recommended
in Real Estate Investing on Knoji.
Would you recommend this author as an expert in Real Estate Investing?
You have 0 recommendations remaining to grant today.
Comments (1)

I feel like I should get a comment when I get a -1... hell I wish I got a comment for a +1 too but... a negative one and no response does not help me fix the problem.