Fun to be a Canadian. you get to see the fireworks but your not too close when they blow up in someones face. musings aside, Obama is not that bad, that is to say he hasn't made things worse (you could debate that it is a little better or worse but it is nothing like Q4 2008- Q1 2009)
Another interesting trend is how during every single economic event in history the leader of the country is held fully responsible for the crisis and recovery. (note i am not passing judgement merely stating an interesting point)
now for something finite. the leaders of a nation play a role in economic difficulties. this role is greatly exaggerated in almost every case. most often the cause of economic collapse is the result of something deep in the economy, that experts say is fine up until it breaks.
in 1929 this was inflated stock prices. the problem is everyone was making money and so had no reason to believe the prices were inflated until the bubble burst.
in 2009 it was the result of mortgages, extreme debt, and the insuring and selling of this debt without regard for the risk involved.
if Bush had regulated mortgages this wouldn't have happened. He would also have been more despised because a bunch of people wouldn't have been able to buy there homes (they are ironically the people who lost there homes and are now upset anyway.)
furthermore if Bush had regulated this market then he would have proven the existence of divination because there is no way he would have been better equipped to find an economic problem then the economists who messed up.
Finally if Obama hadn't bailed out the major companies (he wasn't the one primarily responsible for this by the way. in fact there is a team of a few economists whos job is to save countries around the world from financial collapse. they were likely upset to learn they had to save there own country) then every major bank and insurance company in the united states would have gone bankrupt. everyone with a credit card, mortgage, loan, investments through these banks, and insurance would see the following.
1. they would immediately receive a notice informing them that they need to repay there loan. this is likely to bankrupt anyone with a mortgage (even a stable one) as they would be forced to pay this back in full.
2. no one would be able to borrow money. cash or certified check only. and this is assuming you can find a bank to write checks.
3. if you have insurance you don't. meaning if you get sick or have an accident you're on your own even if you made the payments.
4. money in the bank is gone. the bank doesn't have it. it may be your money, but because the bank has no physical currency left they can't give t to you. sue them if you want, you'll probably win but they still have nothing to give.
and THIS is why the bailout was a good move. though everyone who was involved loathed it in its entirety. after all the second last thing the government wanted was to give money to the people who just screwed everything up. but the first thing that the government didn't want is listed above.
Full Disclosure Game 1 is done.
WTA 3 x GB 1xPublic/1xFull Press.....
)
)
)
)