Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
They also want people they think are less deserving not to get those things, or things that they perceive themselves either to be paying for or not getting. Note that is is unrelated to whether they actually are paying for or getting those things.
|
I think what you are trying to say is that there are people who have benefited from implicit white, male cultural hegemony and who do not want to give that up. Equality is controversial, because there are a lot of people who really like inequality because it benefits them.
Quote:
|
In a world historical sense, I do not disagree. But yeah, we're still arresting black men who racist white ladies don't want in their store, so...
|
Yes, I agree.
Quote:
I actually don't agree. Or, mostly, I do not think it was possible, even if preferable. No one had the authority to impose the nationalization of a huge chunk of the financial system, nor were there ever going to be enough votes available in congress. Even if congress could eventually have been convinced to act, you cannot afford to wait in the face of a bank run. With the tools available at the time, there was no realistic other choice.
The good news is that we've put in place the right tools for next time. Oh. Wait.
|
In specific instances, it was possible and the government did it. What I don't think the government appreciated at the time was the value in being clear that they were screwing the investors. AIG is an example. Taxpayers took an 80% share and made a $23 billion profit. The Obama Administration often figured that good governance would speak for itself, but that turns out to have been bad politics.
And, in other cases, the government bailed out investors while middle-class homeowners took the hits.
