|
Wow.... this topic just keeps coming back to this forum it seems. But you will not find any name calling, inflamatory statements, or wishful thinking coming from me. Folks who inject such statements into this thread make themselves look foolish, and do not help their arguement, if in fact that was really their intention at all.
When you break this issue down all the way, it really has to do with individualism, vs. collectivism. Yes... I have mentioned this before, but it seems to bear out repeating again. individualism says, "What is best for me?". Collectivism says, "What is best for all of us?". While the above two statements seem obvious, some of the implications of it are certainly not.
So you have a bank that made an irresponsible loan, and a person that was foolish enough to accept it. We are assuming here that no coersion was being used (no knives, guns, kidnapping of family members etc) to make either party go for that loan. This was an individual's personal decision. Now you have thousands of such individuals decisions that are just as bad going on, that has led us to the subprime mess that we currently find ourselves in.
There are many here that have expressed the position that the govt needs to do something, because the govt inaction will cause banks to fail, people to lose their homes, and the economy in general will tank. All of these things are probably true. As least for the short term they will be. If the govt does intercede, and artifically "helps" this situation, a lot of that pain to the economy, and to individuals can be reduced or eliminated. However, there is no such thing as a "free lunch", even for the govt. When the govt steps in and "helps", it encourages more of the the "irresponsible" behavior that occured in the first place. Sort of like when a drug addicts parents give the child money "to help them" that they know will be going for drugs. In the short term it takes away their pain and suffering, but in the long run, it just makes things even worse.
If people in this forum still believe that the collective "all of us" (when they talk about the economy, jobs, etc) are more important than the individual's wants, then let me ask the following questions. Should the govt outlaw Mcdonalds and all fast food restaurants? The US would be healthier if that option was not available, and medical costs would go down. Should boxing be outlawed as a sport? A very large percentage of boxers have long term medical problems that are directly related to their time spent in the ring.
How about a question near and dear to everyone in this particular forum. Should the govt outlaw early retirement? The more people that we have in the workforce, the more taxes are being paid. The more taxes that are being paid, the more SS can be funded, and that helps out everyone... doesn't it? IMHO our democracy protects the individuals right to choose for himself. And sometimes those decisons are bad, even disasterous. Sometimes the problems are so bad, that it can affect larger things like the economy as a whole. But the fact remains, that I would much rather live in a system that allows my failure by my own hand, than a system that denys my right to choose because I might pick a bad road for myself. I am an adult.... I live for myself... and not for others.
|