Forum Post: Lenders or borrowers...
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 10, 2012, 2:55 p.m. EST by opensociety4us
(914)
from Norwalk, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The bottom line is that people who wanted to buy shit they couldn't afford didn't walk into the banks with a gun and take the money. The banks approved the loans, gave out the money and entered the debt into our economic system.
If the banks were the party that allowed the debt to enter our economic system, then the banking crisis and subsequent economic woes were primarily caused by the banks and their decisions, not the borrowers. So drone on all you want about reckless borrowers and spenders. It's boring, irrelevant and soooooo after the fact. The borrowers can just go through the bankruptcy process and re-enter the economy and start spending, which would benefit us all.
This is really not that controversial among those who "know" about these things (often bankers themselves). Most who "know" about these things find the conversation of blame to be a cheap biased moral mental masturbation one, not an objective one based in reality. Unless one believes that the reckless borrowers and spenders took the money at gunpoint and entered it as a loan on the banks' books before trotting off, it's obvious who got us into this mess and the subsequent broader economic woes which now concern us all.
Now, how do we get out of it? What did we learn from it? What do we do differently in the future?
And by the way, to any dullard so inclined to call me a socialist or communist in reaction to my objectivity, I have this to say, "fuck you", not necessarily because i'm not a socialist or communist, but because you are a shallow thinker and are probably unworthy of the demands of a robust democracy.
"How do we get out of it?"
Boycott banks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo
"The bottom line is that people who wanted to buy shit they couldn't afford didn't walk into the banks with a gun and take the money. The banks approved the loans, gave out the money and entered the debt into our economic system."
The banks did not force the people to take the loan either. They had just as much of a choice. Im not saying either is more wrong than the other.
Both sides are too blame.
"The banks did not force the people to take the loan either. They had just as much of a choice. Im not saying either is more wrong than the other."
the borrower is responsible for their personal situation and can go through the bankruptcy process and re-enter the economy to begin spending money, which benefits us all.
"Both sides are too blame.'
the borrower is to blame for their personal circumstances - they go through bankruptcy and re-enter the economic system as spenders
the banks are to blame for their circumstances AND the economy because their bankruptcy effects depositors and other innocent bystanders. this is why banks have a greater responsibility in their decision making. this is why their decisions need to be regulated.
Again not saying you are wrong, but there is no law or regulation that says they have too. The banks spent more money than they had. But there is nothing saying they can't.
That is the problem.
there were many regulations in the past, the financial industry lobbied our government to remove them. our government chose to be influenced by the money and remove the regulations rather than continue to protect the interests of its individual citizens
And we need to protest our government to get those who want to fill their pockets out of office, and put in those who want to help America.
Take the money out of politics.
agreed