posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by unityemissions
Fear mongering aside, though it didn't avoid the Great Recession, there are laws put into place that allow the government to do things like bailouts
that were not done before. As much as people like to complain about giving money to the banks, it still may have avoided another depression. If such
institutions were in place before the crash, the GD might of never happened.
With the housing bubble the way it is, it is still a risk. The government itself bought most of the bad mortgages at the time and kept people in their
homes. The bailouts were conditioned to have the banks do the same. But the banks screwed us over, and didn't do what they were supposed to do. They
did the usual and smudged more numbers and didn't get rid of bad debt.
It is time to put tighter laws restricting banks, back again.
Why are insurance companies owning mortgages and so on?
The hallmark of the Great Depression was 25% unemployment. Now I know people like to come on here and make up numbers that we really have 25%
unemployment with no backup information whatsoever, but we barely topped ten.
Even if there was 25% unemployment, it still means different things. 25% unemployment during that era meant that 25% of households had absolutely no
income whatsoever, leading to poverty. In todays world, both spouses can be breadwinners, so if one parent is unemployed, the other can work. There
are welfare programs in place to keep people from starving. So the term "unemployment" means two totally different things between the two time
periods. A lot has been put into place to keep people from standing in bread lines.