View Full Version : How to solve the financial crisis
Nerd Fangs
2008-10-11, 13:35
The Government need to set a level under which they will buy up any debt from any bank. This will reduce speculation in both the debt and shares markets. Money will once again be freely interchanged between the banks.
How it works:
If a debt falls below a certain price, the Government automatically buy it up.
They then hold the debt, taking any interest.
People can then buy the debt from the government at an increased price.
Speculators would then stop selling shares in the banks and selling the debt.The finance market would be stabilised once again. This is necessary before the rest of the economy can begin recovering.
A system would need to be worked out to help stop debtors defaulting. Perhaps the interest rate on the debt could be lowered to help them meet the repayments?
I dunno, this is all just an idea floating round in my head at the moment. If you've got any comments or criticisms please post.
Dichromate
2008-10-11, 23:27
So if banks go out and buy overvalued debt the government will be waiting there to limit their losses?
Moral hazard ftl
No, the answer is simple:
We solve the financial crisis by destroying this whole 'consumer culture' we're all a part of. It thrives on people wasting as much resources as possible, how the fuck is this NOT going to end in failure? :confused:
We need REAL education in schools, so people can think critically and make rational decisions in life.
We need to support local, sustainable businesses.
We need to encourage people to appreciate things like sport, art and music more, instead of being totally obsessed with materialistic goods.
We need to legalise drugs.
no, revvy, you're wrong. this system is sustainable - but it needs constant fuel. it needs aggressive expansion. this system is the only one with a chance to make mankind immortal... eventually, our planet will be a husk, and we will have to combine all our greed and genius into spreading to other planets. eventually, we will reach a population in the universe, that there would be no way to make us extinct. and we would owe it to this very system of destructive lifestyles, that require constant fuel, that are non-sustainable without constant conquest.
Mantikore
2008-10-12, 09:26
No, the answer is simple:
We solve the financial crisis by destroying this whole 'consumer culture' we're all a part of.
this is harder than it sounds. i do think yes, it will be required, but after decades of a thriving economy, its hard to break the habit. ALthough it is possible, a short term solution is also required i reckon
moonmeister
2008-10-12, 10:17
There are (compared to Earth) infinite resources in the Asteroid Belt & hydrocarbons on Titan. With the puny Space programs: it's raining soup & we don't even have a bowl!
Besides: it's true that the Rich do not much care for such a large population. They have little use for so many people... Use your imagination... :)
no, revvy, you're wrong. this system is sustainable - but it needs constant fuel. it needs aggressive expansion. this system is the only one with a chance to make mankind immortal... eventually, our planet will be a husk, and we will have to combine all our greed and genius into spreading to other planets. eventually, we will reach a population in the universe, that there would be no way to make us extinct. and we would owe it to this very system of destructive lifestyles, that require constant fuel, that are non-sustainable without constant conquest.
Depends what you think life should be.
One argument could be that our purpose is to be as efficient as possible, and that we should strive to conquer, explore and advance: all those who appreciate things like music, art and religion are merely defective beings who tear apart the system: making it inefficient.
The alternative is that we need to fight anything which makes us into mere cogs in a machine. That all those who want to conquer and expand are viral beings who exist only to destroy all which is sacred.
It's quite a weird question, for some reason I think that our natural purpose should be the first option: that we should aim for the sky. But a part deep inside of me sways me to the second option; that we should be minimalistic beings who are one with the environment and have deep cultures. I'm not sure whether the artsy side is a defect in humans; a virus disease which halts progress, or whether the scientific part is the defect; a virus which destroys.
This very question, and the fact I can ask myself it, kind of makes me believe we have some kind of soul or something... Who knows.
There are (compared to Earth) infinite resources in the Asteroid Belt & hydrocarbons on Titan. With the puny Space programs: it's raining soup & we don't even have a bowl!
Besides: it's true that the Rich do not much care for such a large population. They have little use for so many people... Use your imagination...
Instead of spending so much human effort and resources on developing shitty consumer products and wars, we should be exploring space. We have limited resources here on Earth, and the more and more we waste on useless consumer products the harder it'll eventually be to explore space on a huge scale.
see, revvy, i don't think it's a either or thing. i think we can have both.
yes, i believe man's purpose is to conquer the universe, but i believe it is as much our purpose to create beauty. we can do both; our american society for the last 100 years has been a incubating, 'perfect society' which would eventually spread to the stars, but we have also fostered a great deal of beautiful art, and it's not like we are a barren, anesthetic people.
the key here is freedom, and capitalism. in a extremely capitalistic society, so long as the destructive thirst for more and more is met, everything runs very, very smoothly. living is cheap, free time is plentiful, people are happy with whatever they choose to do - whether they choose to be one of the leaders of our expansion by become a fortune 500 CEO, whether they choose to make a living in a decent job and raise a family, or whether they wish to starve working a bad job, so they can pursue their art.
this great system of destructive expansion is failing now, because for various reasons, we have ceased to expand - no more colonizing, no more raw production, hell, we have occupied a nation, and we're building it back for them, and we aren't even stealing every drop of oil they have. but look at when it was in it's prime! haven't we always had the choice to be what we wished? one could always choose to be a cog in a machine, or one could choose to be a artist or a druid or whatever.
Art never slowed the machine of perfection down, in fact, it rather liked it. Art is the spiritual analogue to aggressive proliferation; the part that makes us truly human and not merely the most successful life form. what has always slowed us down is the filthy naturalists...
the naturalists, that believe for some reason that NATURE is good. the very meaning of nature is default. standard. beginning. ordinary. mediocre. they talk about how we should keep nature intact, but their only real reason is, 'we're supposed to!' they hate progress and advancement, they'd have us going nowhere, living in harmony with our mediocrity... it's vile. the only thing nature should be considered for is it's benefit to us. obviously, we need tree's to breath... at the moment. we could circumvent that eventually, though. things like that must be considered. a certain amount of nature should be left alone, as a preserve, simply because it can't be a bad idea to leave SOME alone, but the backwards idea's of naturalists are revolting. it's animalistic, barbarian, simplistic, shallow. nature can not even create a perfect tree, it takes a human painter to create one. trees are always slightly our of proportion, too many branch that don't add to the whole, too many aggravating defects, the color is often boring... nature is what we should be distancing ourselves from.
Toastman
2008-10-21, 07:55
How to solve the financial crisis?
Legalize marijuana.
An influx of junk food, candy, hot pockets and unnecessary impulse products will raise GDP an estimated 8,000% and bring the US out of recession.
Seriously.