Consider that we easily could have spent the same amount of money and given it directly to taxpayers. Then we all could have paid down our mortgages and loans, and real estate values could have returned to a reasonable level, and banks would not have been in peril.
Stop downvoting the actually unpopular opinions people
It’s not enough to be unpopular. It also has to be rationalized. An explanation articulated.
Without that, it’s just edgelord bullshit, and edgelord bullshit should always be downvoted.
I don’t owe you an explanation, keep downvoting and calling everything you disagree with “edgelord bullshit”.
It’s hard to not perceive outrageous ideas as edgelord bullshit if it doesn’t come with an explanation.
I think that your message is pretty clear if they’re not somebody trolling on the internet asking everybody to reason things out for them. It must be so withering for them to wander through life hearing things and not being able to reason any of it out. I agree with your unpopular but factual opinion, based on our voting and actions as a herd we likely do deserve another great depression whether we think it’s good or bad. A reversion to the mean is not “edgelord bullshit”, simply a basic understanding of fucking economics. It may be an unpopular opinion, but there are plenty of people who do have some knowledge and experience in the world who are equally concerned that we don’t change our policies, because that would be the only thing that stops us from actually getting a reversion to the mean and a depression cycle
Why do we deserve another great depression?
Why do people slamming their head into a wall deserve a headache?
Why do people getting their head slammed into a wall deserve a headache?
Why indeed
Maybe you do! I personally do not feel that I deserve any such thing…
OP knows what you’ve been up to.
Rather than bailing the banks out they should bail out the mortgages for owner occupied houses. That way people won’t be thrown on the streets because their bank was acting predatory.
Then jail the bankers and financiers that cause depressions and seize their assets to cover the bail out.
Right? It’s not the bailout that upsets me, it’s how they did it and the fact that all the bankers executives weren’t jailed and prevented from working in financial markets again indefinitely.
Do you think another Great Depression would be a good thing?
No, but I think unfortunately sometimes we cannot get to the good things without facing bad things first.
Exactly! I’d gladly live through another Great Depression if we’d get to experience the paradise of another World War at the end of it
people forget that Hitler solved some of Germanies problems. Literally made Germany great again and was Times man of year at one point. This only happened because of Germany was going through such bad times. Let’s not remix history.
Don’t mind the literal slavery the nazi government exploited on all the minorities they despised.
OP thinks a bunch of Americans deserve to punished (potentially die), not because of any of their actions, but because the government and private groups (who will be the least effected) victimize said Americans. The beatings will continue until the economy improves, fucking genius.
That’s your fantasy about what I think.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. We are in the fourth quarter of this game, currently. Weak men are creating hard times.
What is a strong or weak man? Who defined what it is to be a strong or weak man? Why are men the only indicator of a good or bad times? Do the experiences and perspectives of people who are not strong men provide no insight in to what are considered good or bad times?
I would like to know the goal of posting a broad statement such as this. It just seems like a statement to create more personal and “weaker” enemies. Having more enemies sounds exhausting. Or maybe I’m reading into it wrong.
You really can’t decipher the meaning? It implies strength is being able to live and survive in hard times, and those who do are in a greater position to improve things for the future than those who have grown and lived in more stable times. Those who’ve only known stability lack the understanding to cope with some of the changes as we are now experiencing. It further claims those who’ve lived in stability put others at risk.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.
If I’m understanding you, this is about leadership? Is leadership what separates strong men from weak men? Is it solely men in leadership positions that define strong/weak men? Are men in leading role the only source of indicating good times/bad times?
It seem like anyone who is not a man and not strong has very little input if this statement believed to be true.
