I crisis is created because people consumed more than they produced. All that extra consumption was borrowed from somewhere.

The funny part is that the crisis can be over tomorrow if all the debt is wiped off the books. That will never happen because the lenders want anything they can get back, regardless of who suffers.

Fastest cure is issue truckloads of shortterm bonds, give 200K to everyone, have them pay off their loans, default on bonds, end of crisis.

If you put 10$ into the hands of 100 poor people chances are they will spend all of their 10$ whether it is an economic crisis or not

yeah...to buy things like food and things they need. Rich people dont have a problem with getting themselves thier basic needs. 

I disagree with most of your reasoning...if you put 1000 dollars in a rich persons hand...he probably already had a big screen tv...so he would prob put it in his bank and it would be spent keeping his lifestyle where it is.  You dont see rich people eating peanut butter and salted crackers for meals because they dont have anything else to buy.  There would be days were they wouldnt eat at all.  a rich person may buy a new furniture set and discard the old one.  A poor person wishes he had the money to spare to even think about replacing the couch that came with the basement sweet he is renting..a couch that is falling apart because until he could aford a bed he was sleeping on it...i was in that situation at one point in my life.  if someone gave me 1000 dollars, i would pay two months rent up front, and then buy a giant bag of rice, four loaves of bread and put them in the freezer, a bin of marjornie that would last a year, a package of 40 burgers and some mustard.  And every now and then i splurged and got a package of bagels. Lets not forget the kraft dinner i had so often i couldnt taste cheese anymore.  a rich person doesnt have to think of such things

your full of ignorance, and before you claim the poor are poor because they are bad at spending, try living in that situation.   

and another thing. The safty net programs the states had took 12 million people out of poverty in 2007 by giving peopel in poverty money.  thats better for the economy than giving it to people who are already in high tax brackets.  now instead of peopel who are rich getting richer, and geting into tax brackets taht have cuts under the bush administration, you get 12 million people put up a tax bracket.  The richest people int he world pay less, or the poor people become stable and start paying taxes...hmm..waht makes more money?

I think the best solution would be to

step 1. Stimulate the economy by investing in things that bring more jobs and do other good things...two birst with one stone...

like alternative energy, small businesses, leagalize marjuana and tax it (something they will never do, but would solve the crisis in an instant with allt he money they would get from it lol) , education, and many others...

i should also add , since i mentioned pot, before someone gets a hard on, leagalizing it woulnd make people smoke it more, it would just be leagal.  Its better for your health than alchohol , tabacoo and nicoteen...no matter what anyone says...so it wont kill hardly anyone...and it would also save money on all the court cases and jail space..allowing for you to keep ACTUAL criminals and not pot heads...personally i dont smoke pot btw, so its an unbiased opinion

2. after the economy is jump started, give the tax payers some relief...laike say a 4 month period without interest on thier goverment loans...you loose money , but you also loose money when people declare bankrupcy..you have to do what you can to keep people from being down as to give up. 

3.  put the countries growth on a slower plan than it is so it can get a surplus in the national budget, and then you can pick and choose what you want then...now you survive...

Morale = to make money you gotta spend money

so yeah, those are my opinoins.  lol...i hope oboma reads the politcal page on ic...

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

I don't know if you've read the news, Communism: We're in a banking crisis. 

<

Yes we lost shitloads of invisible money

yeah, get milliosn of poor people putting money in the bank is better.  if they get on thier feet, thier income will grow to a point were they put it in the bank

the stores have more money in the bank then...and yes, poor people owuld buy thier basic needs and get back on thier feet.  Then you have a bunch of poor people affording interview cloths, a healthy diet, and a better attitude overall...they get better jobs, and MAGIC...money goes into the bank the second they start making more money than thier basic needs...that simple.

and besides...your going to give rich people money to just put it in the bank? Why doesnt the goverment just put money in the bank? its not peoples fault the banks are in a crisis anyways...its the banks fault...

i always thought if you were refering to the bill its a $10 since thats what the bill looks like, but if your typing like you talk, its 10$ since you would say it "ten dollars"  ...just me though

eg

i ate that $10 bill the other day...

eg # 2

I ate all the food...it cost me 10$

V. Kemp

government can facilitate wealth creation by making sure the right people get the right resources at the right time; it is not easy to determine who, what and when that is exactly, but that's a matter of establishing good governance; the money in question doesn't need to come from directly from other tax payers by the way, it could be done through lowering certain taxes or as justinian pointed out through simply issuing more money (all of which have their own risks, but the net result can still be beneficial, again that is a matter of implementing the right policies)

Father Communism
I think you got caught up a bit in the concrete examples I gave without taking into account the bigger picture behind them. The rich(er) person may or may not have had a plasma TV already, he can buy a new one, he can buy some other gizmo that he didn't yet have,... and like I said in the op he will rather put it into the bank in times of crisis

this is not very beneficial to the bank as I pointed out the bank is scared in times of crisis and will be less willing to take economic risk and instead put it into safer investments like government bonds, not helping to solve the crisis

instead you want companies to be able to sell stuff so that they can go to the banks and get short term loans for their daily operations and long term investments without the bank worrying about them going bust

"your full of ignorance, and before you claim the poor are poor because they are bad at spending, try living in that situation."

also I think this was uncalled for, I merely said poor people are more likely to spend the money, not that they are somehow morally bad with spending or saving

your right...i got a little worked up.  I went through some tough times...Sorry for snapping...

regardless though, the banks may be in crisis, but the real problem is with the economy.  If they economey was healthy, then banks would be fine.  What needs to be done is stimulating the economy, getting people out of poverty.  The more people contributing, the more money is gained in the system (same concept behind pop banking, you gotta max out your planets with pop...and its more money than cf banking) lol...like my little ic example..

at the end of the day , its just my opinion, and i am nothing siad here has changed it...fixing the  banks is a short term half solution, people will still be poor..focus on fixing the long term, and fix things the right way and they wont break next time.

> Father Communism wrote:

> the stores have more money in the bank then...

1: Best case scenario, it's an indirect pumping of money into the bank.  More steps, which means the banks will get less money in the end put into them.

"and yes, poor people owuld buy thier basic needs and get back on thier feet.  Then you have a bunch of poor people affording interview cloths, a healthy diet, and a better attitude overall...they get better jobs, and MAGIC...money goes into the bank the second they start making more money than thier basic needs...that simple. "

With... a couple hundred dollars?  Seriously?  You're arguing that this one magical stimulus will suddenly get poor people rich?
Plus, there's the above "indirect pumping" thing.

"and besides...your going to give rich people money to just put it in the bank? Why doesnt the goverment just put money in the bank? its not peoples fault the banks are in a crisis anyways...its the banks fault..."

Giving money to the banks directly?  Hey, that works too!

Why would giving money to failed institutions run by failed CEOs change anything? They had billions in profits to begin with. They lost it. Why would giving them more change the fact that they're running their companies into the ground? Pay the money you insured and let the failures fail. Let the banks that haven't failed get new customers. That's progress. Giving tax dollars to failed companies is wrong, in addition to stupid.

Why would anyone without a stable income take out a high interest loan? Or any loan at all? The government already gives "JUST enough aid to help people stay afloat." Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, social security, unemployment, section 8 housing, foodstamps, and the list goes on. They don't cost the government much money? That was a joke, right?

Giving a "little bump" does not help anyone accumulate wealth. Giving a small amount of tax money to everyone of low income just gives them a little of the reward for their labor back they already paid in taxes. With an administrative cost in having to support the massive government that taxed them and rerouted their money before returning some of. What kind of solution is this? Don't reduce their taxes, but give them less of their money they wouldn't have had to pay if their taxes were reduced back? As a proposed solution it doesn't make any sense. They could get more at less cost no matter how you sugar coat it or what hollow rhetoric you surround the idea of "give all the poor a little bit of money" with.