redandblack wrote:Psyber, we could, of course, sit back and pretend there's no global financial crisis and even if there is, it might go away if we do nothing.
This isn't a party political question, it's a global response question. In the US, it's an $800 billion package.
As an aside, why do conservatives always feel better if they use names like 'Krudd'?
I'm not convinced the present situation is really that much worse than the crisis in the late 1980s, which appeared to be driven by similarly bubble and burst speculation.
I am also inclined to think the permanent banning of the more speculative forms of trading, futures and short-selling, may be more effective that throwing money away on temporary stimulus, or stimuli, each time they shoot themselves in the foot and scare the system to death. I'm also concerned that the idea of governments being able to be blackmailed into picking up the tab to prevent job losses may encourage them to just keep doing it. I liked Obama's adding the string of restricting executive salaries as part of his package too - these guys are
not worth what they get!
As for the term I used - we small C conservatives are worried about people who go overboard and over-react in
any direction - conservatism is about moderation in changes in preference to hysteria.
I admit I picked the Kruddenomics term up on another site where it was used as a synonym for cruddy economics involving very short-term reactiveness...
Would it be better if I left the K off and called it Ruddenomics? I'm happy to do that as an edit.
