Quote:
Originally Posted by EthanLeeVita
Well said Fantasy Chaser. :) Two parties, same ideas.
|
Yes and no. What Bush started with the banks was unfortunate, but not too terrible.
Bush supporting the fund extension to GM was what was questionable. On one hand, letting them keep business as usual until the new presidency seemed to be a good idea for everyone. On the other hand, it kind of was helping Obama out at the expense of GOP values. If GM had gone under before Obama took office, we'd be better off today TBH. I think if Bush looked back now, he wouldn't have given GM the money.
Two parties, similar ideas with different purposes.
I realize it may be vague, so I'll try to outline what I mean a little bit.
Bush was more in favor of the tried and true "give them a loan, let them do their thing, they'll pay us back later".
Obama is in favor of "buy their company, fire their board, obey what I say".
Of course, people will say "On what grounds can Bush give a loan to them". Some would cite the common good, society as a whole, etc. Perhaps, but lately I've been fond of a different angle involving the way money works.
These days we are on fiat money. Money has no value, the government says it is valuable so it is valuable. This is different than a gold or silver standard. We cannot take a dollar to the government and say "give me my piece of gold". Due to this fact, the government has been turned into a bank of sorts, whether we like it or not. Printing money to give to a company under this system isn't necessarily a loan, it is management of the value of the currency, which is determined by the government to begin with.
Complicated concept, for sure. I'd like to have a gold standard back, but I'm not sure if a gold standard is realistic or not anymore. There may not be enough gold around to make a real gold standard work.